A free account is required to play audio and download files.
No community start suggestion yet.
How does kashrus eidim work when the false witnesses made someone a rasha rather than causing death or lashes? The Rambam (רמב"ם) reads our Gemara (גמרא) as establishing a new principle: all four cases of eidim zomemim share one underlying din - they made the accused into a rasha, and kashrus eidim reverses that very status.
This shiur develops a fundamental understanding of the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s approach to eidim zomemim in Makkos 2b, addressing several major difficulties. The central question is how the din of kashrus eidim functions when the false testimony resulted in designating someone as a rasha (through cases like ben gerusha ben chaluza) rather than imposing death or monetary penalties. The Rambam in Perek 20 presents all four cases mentioned in our Gemara (גמרא) as falling under one unified principle. Rather than viewing them as separate categories of false testimony, the Rambam sees them as manifestations of a single halachic concept: the eidim zomemim made the accused into a rasha, and the Torah (תורה)'s response is to reverse that designation through kashrus eidim.
Looking for the full summary?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Makkos 2b
Looking for the full transcript?
Full access is available to members of the TUF Alumni Association or the Yam Hagadol Foundation.
Already a member? Let the admin know!
Dedicate a Shiur in Gemara
L'ilui nishmas a loved one. In honor of a simcha or yahrzeit. As a zechus for a refuah sheleimah. Your dedication helps carry Rabbi Zweig's Torah to learners around the world.
Why does the Gemara present a kal v'chomer for chuppah making kiddushin based on kesef not being maichel b'terumah, only to reject it? The shiur reveals that even the rejected kal v'chomer establishes a fundamental yesod: kiddushin is a kinyan for ishus (marital relationship), not merely a kinyan in hilchos kinyanim. The second kal v'chomer—from chuppah being gomeres—raises Tosafos's famous question.
Is the kesef used in kiddushin a true kinyan (acquisition), or merely a symbolic means of establishing marriage? The shiur analyzes multiple interpretations of the Gemara's derivation from ki yikach ki'ach mi'Sayeffron, exploring whether marriage constitutes ownership, and develops three fundamental approaches: (1) The Gemara proves ishus is a kinyan, (2) ishus is not a kinyan but uses kinyan-like means, or (3) ishus is a kinyan but the kesef may not be a ma'aseh kinyan. The Rambam's position—calling kesef "midivrei sofrim"—is explained as distinguishing between cross-referencing concepts versus borrowing terminology.
Why does the Mishna alternate between the language of "kinyan" (acquisition) and "kiddushin" (sanctification) when describing marriage? The shiur develops a fundamental distinction: marriage has two separate aspects—a kinyan dimension (ownership) and a kedusha dimension (sanctified relationship). Either aspect can initiate the bond, and understanding this dual nature resolves multiple textual and halachic questions throughout the sugya.
Does kiddushei shetar require a shevah pruta? The Ran presents two approaches to the Rif's position. The shiur develops the Ran's second pshat that shetar kiddushin functions as a hachnah (exchange) rather than a mere kinyan nesina. This reading has profound implications for isuri hana'ah, mechubar, and the relationship between kesef and shetar.
